We know from this longitudinal study [13] that back pain is not correlated with posture, spinal mobility, or physical activity. One would think this would stop the OAs from worrying about posture, but these spirited folks still put clients through postural rigmarole with labels like Upper-Crossed Syndrome (and Lower-Crossed Syndrome).
UCS is an absurdly complicated phenomenon that essentially means the subject’s head and shoulders are forward. Yet, when Lab Coats attempt to define normal positions v. abnormal positions, they cannot agree because of the natural variation humans display. If we cannot definitively state where one’s shoulders should be, how do we know they are forward, and to what degree? Furthermore, what is the root cause of this non-existent problem?
Why, it’s muscular imbalance, of course. However, all the data shrugs its terribly rounded shoulders when it is asked what exactly is imbalanced and by how much. The Lab Coats have tried to define muscular balance for decades, but they cannot agree on strength standards or ratios, what constitutes a “tight” or “loose” muscle, or possible correlations between muscular strength and weakness and pain or injury.
The gist of Paul Ingraham’s great article [14] on postural science: we cannot define poor posture because of the innate variability of human anthropometry and kinetics. Therefore, diagnoses that address specific symptoms are spurious, and various “treatments” of the symptoms we perceive as poor posture are not effective. It’s quite difficult to fix something if we can’t determine how it should and should not be operating. The good news: posture doesn’t really matter.